C,.Bharathiraja v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.03.2019 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.7352 of 2019 C.Bharathiraja ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.

3.The District Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.

4.The Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Town Police Station, Ariyalur District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.03.2019 in accordance with law and direct the respondents 3 & 4 to remove the petitioner's name in the criminal list in H.S.C.No.182 of 2005 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Town Police Station to secure the ends.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Srinivasa Rao For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Addl. Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The prayer sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to delete the petitioner's name in the History sheet maintained in the fourth respondent Police Station.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an auto driver and he belongs to SC community.The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in a case, where his own sister's husband got murdered. Thereafter, he got acqutted from that case. The learned counsel further submitted that even though there are no cases pending aginst the petitioner, several false cases have been foisted against him. In continuation to that, in order to harass the petitioner and to restrict his movements, at the instigation of the superior officers in the Police Department, Histroy Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened at the fourth respondent police station and the petitioner was compelled to attend the police station in the pretext of enquiry in a routine manner.

In this regard, the petitioner had already made several representations to delete the History Sheet, but the respondents have not yet considered till date. Therefore, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender indulging in rowdy activities and invovled in several cases. Hence, History Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened at the fourth respondent police station as against the petitioner and it is being extended regularly as per the Police Standing Order. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4.Heard Mr.R.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 5.

The issue involved in this writ petition has already been dealt with by the Madurai Bench of this Court and detailed order has been passed in W.P.(MD)No.19651 of 2017 on 26.09.2018. On the basis of the above said Order, the Director General Of Police, Chennai issued a circular in Rc.No. 133410/Crime 4(3)/ 2018 dated 05.10.2018, which reads as follows :- The Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in its order dated 26.09.2018, in a batch of cases, in the reference second cited, while quashing the Histroy Sheet maintained in certain Police Stations and which are challenged before the Hon'ble Court, has observed and directed as follows :- "28................ there is a general pattern adopted trend by the Police to continue to retain the names of the persons in the history sheet showing them as rowdies without any justifiable reasons.

the purpose of opening a history sheet is to keep surveillance and check on hardened and habitual criminals in order to maintain peace and tranquility in the society.

29.As mentioned above, it also becomes the duty of the Police to keep reviewing the history sheet regularly to ensure that the persons, who are no longer required to be retained in the list are removed from the list, since it involves the dignity and public image of a person .............

30.Whenever representations are made by the persons whose names are found in the history sheet, it is the duty of the respondent Police to consider the same ............. It will be of no use for the respondent Police to keep the representation pending even without considering them and driving the concerned persons to file appropriate petition before this Court. This Court only hopes that the Police learns a lesson at least after the passing of this order, to be more sensitive and serious in maintaining history sheet.

31........... The Police seems to be adopting the practice of registering FIRs against the persons under Sections 109 and 110 of CrPC, just to open the history sheet and to justify the continuance of the name of the persons in the history sheet. ............... automatic opening of history sheet can be done only if the person has been convicted more than twice under Section 109 of CrPC and more than once under Section 110 of CrPC.

Therefore, mere registration of an FIR under Sections 109 and 110 of CrPC can never justify the action of the Police in continuing to retain the name of the person in the history sheet.

32.....................

33.This Court wants to make it clear that in all future cases, where the retention of the name of a person in history sheet becomes a subject matter of challenge before this Court, if this Court finds that the name of the person

has been retained without any justification and is in contravention with PSO Nos.746 to 748 and the guidelines given by this Court, compensation will be granted to the victims and the same will be directed to be recovered from the monthly salary of the Inspector of Police in whose station the history sheet is being maintained........"

2. Provisions contained in PSO 746 to 748 and the above orders of the Hon'ble High Court shall be followed scrupulously while maintaing the history sheets by the SHOs.

3. All Sub-Divisional Officers shall periodically review all History sheet files and Rowdy sheet files maintained in the Police Station under their jurisdiction.

4. IGPs in Zones, COPs in citites and the SPs in District shall sensitize all the Police personnel working under their jurisdiction in this regard and also review the cases periodically."

6.In veiw of the above circular passed by the Director General of Police, Chennai, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders :- (i) The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation before the fourth respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

(ii) On receipt of such representation, the fourth respondent is directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the history sheet maintained by the fourth respondent Police Station.

7.With the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rm

To 1.The District Collector, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur. 3.The District Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.

4.The Inspector of Police,Ariyalur Town Police Station, Ariyalur District.

5.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.

+1 cc to Mr.R.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate Sr.No.28763 W.P.No.7352 of 2019 CSL/27.03.2019